National's plans to replace Three Waters with opt-in off-balance-sheet entities for councils' water assets is dead in the water without a Government guarantee, which Luxon & Brown have again ruled out
Tearing my hair out at the bullshit coming from National on this. Rating agencies and the market is going to punish us for this decision financially. With this, the unfundable tax cuts, cuts to the govt departments (despite the FTE growth being in line with population growth) that are affecting the workers not the senior leadership who are still the same ones making the same decisions as they have for the last 20-30 years as well as fueling more inflation and looking to be no interest rates cuts. National is doing a great job at breaking the myth that a vote from them means a vote for good economic governance
That's quite a photo, Lynn. It looks staged. At first glance I thought you had played around and created a composited photograph - an almost too cliché to be authentic apocalyptic scene.
Aro Street has never looked more Hollywood sci-fi.
Happy for this post to be opened to the public. We need informed discussion as National heaves another grenade into local government.
Chucking out Three Waters means all the fine work Kieran McAnulty did in meeting with every single council to understand their particular issues, together with the institutional knowledge accumulated by the Three Waters team, has been chucked into Wellington Harbour. Thus the wheel is endlessly reinvented.
I read somewhere - might have been here - that the international rating agencies were fine with central government debt, but not fine with local government debt. Is a fancy corporate structure (CCO) really going to fool anyone?
I think it would be great to open it up to the public as well. I did note that Spider Hoof made an excellent video on the new Govts so called 3 waters reform. It's on the platform formerly known as twitter. And yes, for my sins I am still on it. It is extremely interesting in terms of the dreadful situation playing out in real time in Gaza and Rafah.
The can will be kicked even further down the road. The required legislation will be passed mid 2025, but the implementation will be much longer. It will take the economic regulator a couple of years to gather information, set up the rules and make the decisions on the regulation it will apply and the limits it will set. The amount of work will be a lot more than they have ever done so expect resource constraints. They won't be able to copy paste the existing regulation applied to other network utilities without ensuring it plays nicely with the other legislation that applies to water.
Deeply cynical and utterly infuriating from the govt, but wonderfully explained Bernard. Open it up to the public! Also - a bond trader friend alerted me to the fact that Kainga Ora use non-govt backed bonds and it has worked ok aka they're building some houses with it, are you across this at all Bernard? Would be great to know your thoughts. Ka Pai for great journalism and great cicada backing music, the Kaka is worth every penny!
Why was the ‘the last Labour government's water legislation was extremely bad and must be repealed’ Fiwi. People say that but I have never heard why. I am genuinely interested.
the management system was extremely impracticable and would have resulted in abysmal results.
water infrastructure assets were stolen from councils. that is totally unacceptable.
for New Zealand as a whole the total costs for/to New Zealanders would have been far greater/much more than the total financial costs of the existing system.
decision making would have been removed from elected representatives.
Thank you for that Robert. I had heard about the water assets being stolen from the council but that argument didn’t appeal to me because the cost of maintaining them was also removed. The rate payers would have benefitted because their rates wouldn’t have increased to maintain them. Everybody else benefitted because the responsibility was transferred from Councils to Government which is not constrained by lack of money - it prints the bloody stuff. In other words I am not at all impressed by any of those arguments.
your second sentence is absurd nonsense. costs for/to ratepayers would have been much greater/more and they would have lost any control over their water systems.
the total cost of Labour's system would have been far greater/much more per New Zealander
than the existing system (which does need improving).
the only New Zealanders who would have benefited would have been those in the top echelons of the management structure (colossal income packages).
your argument that government is not constrained by the lack of money is absurd nonsense.
you have ignored the EXTREMELY top heavy management structure.
When you say the top heavy management structure, do you mean the governance group of regional representatives (elected reps and mana whenua), the Board, or the management under the Board?
Since the elected reps would have been removed from decision making they wouldn't have been that much of a burden would they?
yes, some councils were (and still are) abysmal, but the system legislated for by the Labour government was horrendous and I am pleased that the current government will repeal that legislation. as stated below I have trepidation about what the current government will legislate.
more rigorous legislation is required to force councils to have fully functioning water and sewerage infrastructure. Nelson city is passable, but they are not paying their fair/just share (they agreed to pay $5 million but their fair share is about $25 million) of the costs of the water they obtain from the Waimea River catchment.
I mean the whole lot, which I see as an EXTREMELY top heavy system (and remember Tuku Morgan was in there big time). I believe/see that the system legislated for by Labour was insane. I admit that I have trepidation about what the current government will legislate (and not just water and sewage legislation).
elected representatives should be the ones making the decisions because they become answerable to the people at elections.
the last Labour government's water legislation was extremely bad and must be repealed.
the question is what is the best solution. the installation of water meters to all properties supplied with water by/from a reticulated water supply system is essential. Nelson city did this years ago and it has proved to be an excellent decision.
There needs to be a funding commitment in the LTP that is delivered on. Even if there is enough money budgeted for the job, it need to be delivered right now (rather the old trick of keeping it sitting in Year 4 of the Plan or later) so each council can develop its billing system, or fund Wellington Water to produce a central billing system. Then you have buy the meters and get the resources to roll out the installation on every connection (including sorting out all the issues this will uncover like shared supply up a right of way). All the while keeping on top of all the BAU work. Finally you have to set water charges to cover your costs and investment needs, bill and collect from people who can vote you out next election.
Simple to say, hard to do. Then you hope water use and leaks decrease so you don't run out of water before the next source is built.
I think Wayne Guppy will kick up a stink. He has previously said he would only look at it with a business case that stacked up. Someone will have to pay $300m to install the water meters.
I am sure he will. But even without GWRC putting extra charges on the delivery of water to the metro councils for having so much leakage, the total costs from GWRC get shared between councils based on water used. If other councils start to plan to reduce their demand with meters and fixing leaks the Upper Hutt's costs will be expected to increase to compensate. And this is an operational cost so it goes directly to ratepayers, they might find it more palatable to take on some long term debt and keep up with their neighbors
Nelson city has to be the most incompetent local government area I have ever lived in, the fact they’re in change of peoples drinking water actually frightens me. Come to think of it, that councils in NZ are responsible for drinking water at all is problematic, but I’m more accustomed to state owned entities running the show where I grew up in WA. I don’t think Perth would have any drinking water left if the councils were responsible, couldn’t imagine what a debacle that would have been.
Anyway I agree that metering is a good idea, mostly as a behavioural intervention to make people value water more.
Agree, but one of the precepts of MMT-style money creation for public works is that there needs to be sufficient spare capacity in manpower and physical resource terms because if newly minted money competes with existing money for those resources, then inflation immediately follows.
Realistically, the resource needs to be found by redirecting engineering capacity away from existing projects such as new roading and the proliferation of "bullshit jobs" such as overblown 'traffic safety management' around even the tiniest project.
As you know, to raise money in this way would also require the undoing of several misguided pieces of legislation of the 'fiscal responsibility' kind, which in turn would require the admission that this legislation was ill-conceived at best / politically motivated & fraudulent at worst when it was created, as well as incurring the wrath of the IMF, which polices this Neoclassical rubbish at the global level.
The elephant in the room is the ascent of Maori culture in the way of life of the average NZer. In my holiday travels, this was the most commonly expressed concern and justification for why my child-hood friends voted against the Labour Greens alliance. None voted FOR the right wing policies of the current bunch of weirdos running NZ, they voted AGAINST the Maori affirming policies of the old government. So claiming a mandate to dump such forward thinking policies as Three Waters is a tragic National party fantasy for which will all continue to pay. Sadly for the indigenous peoples of NZ, the long held Maori dream to see their culture inform the way of life for New Zealanders may have to wait a little longer ...until they have the numbers and political clout to permanently cement the place of Maori culture in the life of NZ.
I think i get what you are saying - that Maori have much of the knowledge that we need to regenerate our natural resources and our sane selves. That sends a lot of people rushing for shelter from the 'old boys'' ways - backwards. Is backlash against Maori ( or anyone non-white) and also against women
I hesitate to correct the amazing journalism, however as an Aucklander this is facts I know.
1. Metro Water Ltd was incorporated on 30 June 1997 (863532). Worked as a Council owned organisation. There was confusion & resistance as management took over water control.
2. Water supply is part of rates payment by landowners & water meters were installed.
3. As a 'rate' it was included in calculating rent/mortgage assistance from Ministry of Social Welfare. However Min of SW in Wellington said not a 'rate'. It took a Appeal in June 2008 for Wellington to reverse decision, of course many had been short paid in the interim.
4. Water costs are paid by owners/landlords in Auckland.
There is a lengthy story of water control in Auckland, Waiheke had to argue that water rates unfair as use tank water.
I'm very keen for you to open the Kaka to public. You are providing an informed public service while the spin doctors work to deflect and nullify the real situations. I note that both Crisis Chris and Simple Simeion read their speeches. Thus proving the influence of insider wording.
As for the apparent impasse on water meters and lack of investment in the critical areas of water supply and disposal. I'm a retired water engineer, it seems to be a non sequitur that a government collage that pushes for user pays shies away from paying for water. In AKL we pay Watercare for every drop of water we use and pay 80% of that amount for water disposal.
It is the sensible and logical way forward.
Once again I observe the inability of our current local and central both elected
Keen to have this open up to the public.
Tearing my hair out at the bullshit coming from National on this. Rating agencies and the market is going to punish us for this decision financially. With this, the unfundable tax cuts, cuts to the govt departments (despite the FTE growth being in line with population growth) that are affecting the workers not the senior leadership who are still the same ones making the same decisions as they have for the last 20-30 years as well as fueling more inflation and looking to be no interest rates cuts. National is doing a great job at breaking the myth that a vote from them means a vote for good economic governance
Will do that now. Thanks Renee.
That's quite a photo, Lynn. It looks staged. At first glance I thought you had played around and created a composited photograph - an almost too cliché to be authentic apocalyptic scene.
Aro Street has never looked more Hollywood sci-fi.
All it needed was Arnold Schwarzenegger striding out of Aro Video and proclaiming that 'I'll be back' to return the DVD of Terminator 2.
Brilliant 👏
I just thought 'Aren't water parks fun"
Happy for this post to be free to public
Happy for this post to be opened to the public. We need informed discussion as National heaves another grenade into local government.
Chucking out Three Waters means all the fine work Kieran McAnulty did in meeting with every single council to understand their particular issues, together with the institutional knowledge accumulated by the Three Waters team, has been chucked into Wellington Harbour. Thus the wheel is endlessly reinvented.
I read somewhere - might have been here - that the international rating agencies were fine with central government debt, but not fine with local government debt. Is a fancy corporate structure (CCO) really going to fool anyone?
Are NACT being advised by LIz Truss? They seem ignorant of the way financial markets work.
I think it would be great to open it up to the public as well. I did note that Spider Hoof made an excellent video on the new Govts so called 3 waters reform. It's on the platform formerly known as twitter. And yes, for my sins I am still on it. It is extremely interesting in terms of the dreadful situation playing out in real time in Gaza and Rafah.
The can will be kicked even further down the road. The required legislation will be passed mid 2025, but the implementation will be much longer. It will take the economic regulator a couple of years to gather information, set up the rules and make the decisions on the regulation it will apply and the limits it will set. The amount of work will be a lot more than they have ever done so expect resource constraints. They won't be able to copy paste the existing regulation applied to other network utilities without ensuring it plays nicely with the other legislation that applies to water.
Deeply cynical and utterly infuriating from the govt, but wonderfully explained Bernard. Open it up to the public! Also - a bond trader friend alerted me to the fact that Kainga Ora use non-govt backed bonds and it has worked ok aka they're building some houses with it, are you across this at all Bernard? Would be great to know your thoughts. Ka Pai for great journalism and great cicada backing music, the Kaka is worth every penny!
Why was the ‘the last Labour government's water legislation was extremely bad and must be repealed’ Fiwi. People say that but I have never heard why. I am genuinely interested.
the management structure was EXTREMELY top heavy.
the management system was extremely impracticable and would have resulted in abysmal results.
water infrastructure assets were stolen from councils. that is totally unacceptable.
for New Zealand as a whole the total costs for/to New Zealanders would have been far greater/much more than the total financial costs of the existing system.
decision making would have been removed from elected representatives.
Thank you for that Robert. I had heard about the water assets being stolen from the council but that argument didn’t appeal to me because the cost of maintaining them was also removed. The rate payers would have benefitted because their rates wouldn’t have increased to maintain them. Everybody else benefitted because the responsibility was transferred from Councils to Government which is not constrained by lack of money - it prints the bloody stuff. In other words I am not at all impressed by any of those arguments.
your second sentence is absurd nonsense. costs for/to ratepayers would have been much greater/more and they would have lost any control over their water systems.
the total cost of Labour's system would have been far greater/much more per New Zealander
than the existing system (which does need improving).
the only New Zealanders who would have benefited would have been those in the top echelons of the management structure (colossal income packages).
your argument that government is not constrained by the lack of money is absurd nonsense.
you have ignored the EXTREMELY top heavy management structure.
Might I suggest you start reading, and understanding, MMT
have previously done that
When you say the top heavy management structure, do you mean the governance group of regional representatives (elected reps and mana whenua), the Board, or the management under the Board?
Since the elected reps would have been removed from decision making they wouldn't have been that much of a burden would they?
Given most councils had failed to invest or maintain these “valuable assets” taking them out of their hands might be seen as a sensible move?
yes, some councils were (and still are) abysmal, but the system legislated for by the Labour government was horrendous and I am pleased that the current government will repeal that legislation. as stated below I have trepidation about what the current government will legislate.
more rigorous legislation is required to force councils to have fully functioning water and sewerage infrastructure. Nelson city is passable, but they are not paying their fair/just share (they agreed to pay $5 million but their fair share is about $25 million) of the costs of the water they obtain from the Waimea River catchment.
I mean the whole lot, which I see as an EXTREMELY top heavy system (and remember Tuku Morgan was in there big time). I believe/see that the system legislated for by Labour was insane. I admit that I have trepidation about what the current government will legislate (and not just water and sewage legislation).
elected representatives should be the ones making the decisions because they become answerable to the people at elections.
Non-government backed bonds are more costly than government backed ones.
yes, and for this reason I believe that now KO does get to borrow with government backing?
Thanks Fiwi. I am very lucky. The cicadas make a racket for free these days.
"Local water done nothing"
Feels like an expensive way to cross out all the Te Reo text in blue marker pen and wash your hands
Delivering deliverables
the last Labour government's water legislation was extremely bad and must be repealed.
the question is what is the best solution. the installation of water meters to all properties supplied with water by/from a reticulated water supply system is essential. Nelson city did this years ago and it has proved to be an excellent decision.
It sounds like the Wellington area councils have finally come to their senses about water meters and have agreed to progress.
They have made positive noises, but...
There needs to be a funding commitment in the LTP that is delivered on. Even if there is enough money budgeted for the job, it need to be delivered right now (rather the old trick of keeping it sitting in Year 4 of the Plan or later) so each council can develop its billing system, or fund Wellington Water to produce a central billing system. Then you have buy the meters and get the resources to roll out the installation on every connection (including sorting out all the issues this will uncover like shared supply up a right of way). All the while keeping on top of all the BAU work. Finally you have to set water charges to cover your costs and investment needs, bill and collect from people who can vote you out next election.
Simple to say, hard to do. Then you hope water use and leaks decrease so you don't run out of water before the next source is built.
The best time to have done it was years ago.
Yeah hadn’t thought of that, even if metering helps with behavioural use of water, if the pipes are failing it’d be an expensive diversion
I think Wayne Guppy will kick up a stink. He has previously said he would only look at it with a business case that stacked up. Someone will have to pay $300m to install the water meters.
I am sure he will. But even without GWRC putting extra charges on the delivery of water to the metro councils for having so much leakage, the total costs from GWRC get shared between councils based on water used. If other councils start to plan to reduce their demand with meters and fixing leaks the Upper Hutt's costs will be expected to increase to compensate. And this is an operational cost so it goes directly to ratepayers, they might find it more palatable to take on some long term debt and keep up with their neighbors
Nelson city has to be the most incompetent local government area I have ever lived in, the fact they’re in change of peoples drinking water actually frightens me. Come to think of it, that councils in NZ are responsible for drinking water at all is problematic, but I’m more accustomed to state owned entities running the show where I grew up in WA. I don’t think Perth would have any drinking water left if the councils were responsible, couldn’t imagine what a debacle that would have been.
Anyway I agree that metering is a good idea, mostly as a behavioural intervention to make people value water more.
The government has real options to ensure good water infrastructure which it is ideologically blind to.
Such options as interest free or very low interest loans via the Reserve Bank.
Instead the government acts in the interests of the private financial vultures.
Agree, but one of the precepts of MMT-style money creation for public works is that there needs to be sufficient spare capacity in manpower and physical resource terms because if newly minted money competes with existing money for those resources, then inflation immediately follows.
Realistically, the resource needs to be found by redirecting engineering capacity away from existing projects such as new roading and the proliferation of "bullshit jobs" such as overblown 'traffic safety management' around even the tiniest project.
As you know, to raise money in this way would also require the undoing of several misguided pieces of legislation of the 'fiscal responsibility' kind, which in turn would require the admission that this legislation was ill-conceived at best / politically motivated & fraudulent at worst when it was created, as well as incurring the wrath of the IMF, which polices this Neoclassical rubbish at the global level.
The elephant in the room is the ascent of Maori culture in the way of life of the average NZer. In my holiday travels, this was the most commonly expressed concern and justification for why my child-hood friends voted against the Labour Greens alliance. None voted FOR the right wing policies of the current bunch of weirdos running NZ, they voted AGAINST the Maori affirming policies of the old government. So claiming a mandate to dump such forward thinking policies as Three Waters is a tragic National party fantasy for which will all continue to pay. Sadly for the indigenous peoples of NZ, the long held Maori dream to see their culture inform the way of life for New Zealanders may have to wait a little longer ...until they have the numbers and political clout to permanently cement the place of Maori culture in the life of NZ.
I think i get what you are saying - that Maori have much of the knowledge that we need to regenerate our natural resources and our sane selves. That sends a lot of people rushing for shelter from the 'old boys'' ways - backwards. Is backlash against Maori ( or anyone non-white) and also against women
Thank you Bernard. Please open it up to the public mate
I hesitate to correct the amazing journalism, however as an Aucklander this is facts I know.
1. Metro Water Ltd was incorporated on 30 June 1997 (863532). Worked as a Council owned organisation. There was confusion & resistance as management took over water control.
2. Water supply is part of rates payment by landowners & water meters were installed.
3. As a 'rate' it was included in calculating rent/mortgage assistance from Ministry of Social Welfare. However Min of SW in Wellington said not a 'rate'. It took a Appeal in June 2008 for Wellington to reverse decision, of course many had been short paid in the interim.
4. Water costs are paid by owners/landlords in Auckland.
There is a lengthy story of water control in Auckland, Waiheke had to argue that water rates unfair as use tank water.
Very happy for this post be opened to the public, in as many places as possible.
Kia ora Bernard.
I'm very keen for you to open the Kaka to public. You are providing an informed public service while the spin doctors work to deflect and nullify the real situations. I note that both Crisis Chris and Simple Simeion read their speeches. Thus proving the influence of insider wording.
As for the apparent impasse on water meters and lack of investment in the critical areas of water supply and disposal. I'm a retired water engineer, it seems to be a non sequitur that a government collage that pushes for user pays shies away from paying for water. In AKL we pay Watercare for every drop of water we use and pay 80% of that amount for water disposal.
It is the sensible and logical way forward.
Once again I observe the inability of our current local and central both elected